POLITICAL COLUMN

Text Size

-

+

reset

When Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000, he got only 2.74 percent of the popular vote.
AP Photo

The volunteers are needed, Nader says, to gather signatures to get his name on the ballot in the 50 states, an arduous and expensive proposition. Nader also said he would need a "network of pro-bono lawyers to fight for ballot access."

Nader admits that Mayor Bloomberg's wealth could make it far easier for him to get ballot access. "A multibillionaire like Bloomberg could immediately turn it into a three-cornered race," Nader said.

If Nader runs, he would emphasize the "ever-increasing corporate power in our society" and "the expanding disconnect between the growth of the economy and the distribution to people who work hard but don't get the fruits of it."

Nader also believes the United States should withdraw from Iraq over a six-month period, have the United Nations sponsor new elections and leave no U.S. forces behind.

In Nader's scenario, the "bottom falls out of the insurgency, the U.S. brings the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis together, and all you are left with are criminal gangs, and criminal gangs can be dealt with."

When Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000, he got only 2.74 percent of the popular vote. But in Florida, Nader's votes may have been critical. Gore ended up losing the election to Bush by 537 votes in Florida, a state where Nader got 97,448 votes. Many believe that had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have gotten thousands of those votes and become president.

Nader is unrepentant, though he says people still stop him on the street to berate him about it.

When they do, Nader tells them: "Why don't you blame the thieves? Why don't you blame Tallahassee and the Supreme Court? Bush's people stole the election!"

Nader calls the attacks on him "political bigotry."

"What was our crime? We used our constitutional rights to run," he said. "We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush."

Among the proposals, Nader said, was a "living wage, cracking down on corporate crime against consumers and pensions, not to mention an authentic health insurance agenda."

Nader says, however, that he and Gore have patched things up.

"Yeah, he is very friendly," Nader said. "You wouldn't believe what he wrote when he autographed his book ('An Inconvenient Truth') to me when I stood in line at the bookstore. It was like, 'To my good friend, with great respect.'"

Nader says that if they don't implode, the Democrats are very likely to win the presidency and retain control of Congress in 2008.

So why would he run at all?

"What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people," he said. "And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."

Readers' Comments (309)

Dear Mr Nader---- While you are pondering whether to run for President, I do hope you will weigh what your candicy brought our country in 2000 ? Because of you, the Democratic Party had to spend funds in the Pacific Northwest. Because of you. political "architects" like Karl Rove....have continued their successful negative campaigns. Because of you, the neoconservatives kidnapped American foreign policy. I hope you will reflect on my questions ? I find your smug comments on how it depends on the Democrats to be arrogant. You are partially responsible for electing one of the worst American Presidents. I hope you sleep well at night ?

Shake things up, Mr Nader. Im a former democrat, and i hope he gets in the race. they need to be kicked in the balls. If the dems really think they lost because of a soft spoken 73yr old man, they have more problems than Ralph Nader. Nader is right, there is no real choice, and so what if he "spoils"? Be it GOP or DEM's who win, nothing will change anyway. Run, Mr Nader, Run. You are the only honest man left in politics. We need President Nader. But even more than that, we need Candidate Nader.

It would be great if Nader and Bloomberg both got in the race.They would probably raise more republican money than the republicans themselves.This is what the Dem party gets for running all far left candidates and pandering to their loony base.They are doing the same thing in congress and have 14% support from the American people.Haven't seen the rodent Howard Dean out there explaing why congress's approval is so low,I'm sure he'd blame the republcans lol.

Here we go again... The only thing Nader and his supporters can possbily do in '08 is elect the Republican, as they did in 2000. Major differences between a Gore administration and the Bush one(which even Naderites had to have know in '00) include Kyoto, Social Security, stem cells, the deficit, etc. Hasn't enough blood been spilled in Iraq for you guys yet?

Yawn. The last thing people need in '08 is a Ralph Nader when they're crying out for someone with a clear vision and political clout to end Bush's disasterous occupation.

But this time, a Nader candidacy hurts Republicans, who are searching desperately for someone who doesn't stink up the place, versus Dems, who have quite possibly fielded the most attractive candidates in a half century. Additionally, in contrast to conservatives, leftists voters have also learned the lesson well that a Nader vote can be a bad mistake.

Dear Mr. Nader, Once you were a great American. You deserve our thanks for that. So thank you. Now, please retire somewhere. Just go away-far, far away. If you run, we are liable to be stuck with another idiot, although the chances of any president being as bad as GW are slim. But frankly, I don't know if we can take another term or two of incompetence. And you would be contributing to that if you run. Can't you see what you are doing? You're clearly not a stupid man, so why do you act so stupid? Just. Go. Away. You've done quite enough, thank you. Call it a day.

Nadar is without a doubt the most egotiscal SOB in America. He has a very inflated opinion of himself and except for a few irrational follwers has no base. About all Ralph has ever done is attack my autos. I was the proud owner of VW's, Corvairs, Pintos, etc. They all ran fine and served me very well. They served me much better than Nadar ever did. He gave us Bush and refuses to admit it. He has no concept of how much he has hurt Americans with his irrational and painful views. He just needs to go away and find a nice manure pile somewhere where he can associate with his peers.

hey ralphy buddy, i hope you DO get your tired presidentialy insignificant 70+yr old ass in the race. nothing i'd love more than to hear, see you running around every MSM outlet whining how you're being kept off the ballots and how unprincipled the dem party is blah, blah, blah. of course Fox Spin Cycle will give you all the free air time you need to get your sanctimonious msg out. i'll be LMAO as you find no dems willing to buy your BS other than the repubs trying to prop your lame ass up as they did lieberman. c'mon out n' play ralphy, i dare ya.

Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton's White House and Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said of a possible Nader candidacy: "His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself........"

Major differences between a Gore administration and the Bush one(which even Naderites had to have know in '00) include Kyoto, Social Security, stem cells, the deficit, etc.

Are you speaking hypothetically? If Gore had won? OK - let's go through these:

Kyoto - The Senate voted 95-0 against this treaty, remember? Social Security - Bush tried to get this program solvent by partially privatizing it. He failed to garner the support of Democrats and Republican "moderates" and lost. What is Gore's fix? More taxes? Stem cells - OK, I agree that this should be federally funded. But it is not illegal for states or private industry to fund this research (or foreign countries) and still we are awaiting a medical application for hESC. It appears that there is more than just taxpayer money limiting this technology. Namely the oncogenic potential of these pluripotent cells. Since the Bush tax cuts fully went into effect (May 2003) federal revenues have grown 35%. This exceeds any 4 year period during the Clinton-Gore years. Would Gore have cut taxes to stimulate the economy, create this revenue windfall and pull us out of the Clinton recession? I doubt it. Would he have spent less money? I doubt it. Hell, even without the additional spending associated with the War in Iraq, Gore's deficits may well have have been even larger ...

so what if he "spoils"? Be it GOP or DEM's who win, nothing will change anyway.

i have really been debating this within myself for awhile now. i have been wanting to vote for an independent in the next upcoming election. but i dont want to take away from the democrats.. i would voter for a republican if there was a candidate that really stood out but other than that they really lost my vote. anywho, you probably are right, nothing will get solved or accomplished if we vote for a dem or republican... so voting for an independant would show more power to the third party and give them more credibility... this would also or at least should wake up the dems or reps,, now i seriosly doubt an independent would get the presidency but if he did that would really shake things up.. congress which would be mostly rep and dems would shit themselfs, but what would they do. if they did not work with him the american people would see this and it could be political suicide for both parties. im guessing they wont because they will still be arguing to see who is the coolest party ever... i dont see a whole lot happening besides imploding, but in the long run could turn this county around in the right direction.. so if the independent party gets a real candidate then i just may fo for it and the dems and reps need to fight for and change their ways if they want to keep power

I've never said that Bush was a fiscal conservative ... only that he is better than Gore (or any Democrat).

wouldn't have needed to. SS was already in surplus and all of that and more has been squandered under GWB.

Social Security will be in default soon unless we do something. this is a simple demographic fact and has nothing to do with Bush policies. Like i said - he failed in his parivatization bid, so nothing was done.

db531: Jun. 21, 2007 - 9:13 AM EST

they also with a majority vote passed the AUMF and were wrong then too.

The point is that no President could have implemented Kyoto - thankfully.